NEPA Clean Energy Analysis: Deliverable 1
Clean Energy Project Landscape
Executive Summary
Key decisions to make for next steps:
- Are there any further refinements to the project definition of “Clean Energy” we want to consider?
- Exclude “Utilities” + non-energy tags
- Exclude “Military and Defense” nuclear projects?
- Exclude waste management of nuclear projects?
- Any further analysis of DOE projects?
- What do we prefer for the geographic analysis–maps, tables, some combination?
- Do we want a deeper dive into any specific location?
This report aims to create the following set of deliverables:
Data on number of clean energy projects within the dataset: number of projects broken down by technology (e.g., offshore and onshore wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear), lead agency, and location
Figure 1 gives us a sense of the universe of total number of projects in the publicly released NEPATEC2.0 database by review process.
Figure 2 reports all clean energy projects in the NEPA database, which totals about 25,000 clean energy projects extracted from the NEPA database.
Definitions: What Qualifies as Clean Energy?
Table 1 enumerates the CAFT-defined 14 clean energy and 5 fossil fuel categories used to identify clean vs fossil fuel energy projects in the NEPA database. While projects often have multiple tags, “clean energy” is identified as having at least one of the 14 tags AND no fossil fuel tags.
About 10% of projects have only clean energy tags, but most (about 90%) have at least 1 clean energy tag plus some other combination of tags.
Further Refining
After reviewing a table of all co-occurring project types, three other projects combinations are currently under consideration to be excluded from the “clean energy” category.
Utilities + non-energy: About 1,623 projects tagged ONLY as Utilities AND with 1 or more of the following non-energy tags (e.g., broadband, waste management, land development) were excluded, since these likely reflect utility-adjacent infrastructure rather than energy generation.
Military and Defense + Nuclear: There are 481 projects tagged as “Nuclear Energy” and “Military and Defense.” A full table can be viewed here. The majority of these projects are led by the Department of Energy rather than the Department of Defense—an unexpected pattern that warrants further consideration. Should these be excluded or further analyzed in some way?
Nuclear + Waste Management : Approximately, 4,000 projects combine “Nuclear” (“Nuclear Technology” and “Conventional Energy Production - Nuclear”) and “Waste management” tags. A full table can be viewed here. Many of these projects appear to involve decommissioning or site cleanup rather than energy production. Are these projects we wish to classify as “clean energy” since it looks more like management rather than power generation?
Technology Distribution
Key Findings: Technology
Utilities, Electricity Transmission, and Nuclear Technology dominate the clean energy NEPA landscape. Utility and Electricity Transmission projects comprise the largest share, reflecting the infrastructure build out required to connect renewable generation to load centers. The prominence of nuclear and solar projects are interesting. When looking at how clean energy technologies breakdown by review process, most are granted “Categorical Exclusion (CE)” status, with Hydropower, nuclear, and wind producing projects to be notable exceptions.
The first deliverable examines how clean energy projects breakdown by technology.
A second interesting analysis is to view how the technologies break down by review process.
Lead Agency
Key Finding: Agency
Department of Energy (DOE) dominates clean energy NEPA reviews (81% of projects), followed by Interior (17%). Notably, DOE processes the vast majority through Categorical Exclusions (CE) (96%), while Interior shows more variation across process types. This concentration suggests DOE’s loan programs and grid modernization initiatives drive most federal clean energy review activity.Most other agencies have a substantial share of projects requiring Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) or Enviornmental Assessement (EA).
This next deliverable examines project counts by lead agency. In this analysis, agency has been aggregated up to department for parsimony, since agency was less informative. Table 2 reports counts by agency and review process with Figure 5 visualizing counts by agency and Figure 6 visualizing counts by agency and review process.
| Department | Categorical Exclusion | Environmental Assessment | Environmental Impact Statement | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Department of Energy | 20,136 | 475 | 344 | 20,955 |
| Department of the Interior | 3,230 | 213 | 244 | 3,687 |
| Department of Agriculture | 43 | 11 | 41 | 95 |
| Other Independent Agencies | 0 | 1 | 94 | 95 |
| Department of Defense | 7 | 2 | 28 | 37 |
| Major Independent Agencies | 0 | 3 | 30 | 33 |
| General Services Administration | 5 | 0 | 7 | 12 |
| Department of Homeland Security | 5 | 1 | 4 | 10 |
| Department of Transportation | 1 | 1 | 7 | 9 |
| Department of Health and Human Services | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Department of Commerce | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Department of Housing and Urban Development | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Department of State | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Department of Veterans Affairs | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Department of the Treasury | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| International Assistance Programs | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Legislative Branch | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 23,434 | 709 | 806 | 24,949 |
Geographic Distribution
Key Finding: Geography
Clean energy projects concentrate in the Western states and South Carolina. South Carolina has the most projects (largely driven by nuclear projects at the Savannah River Site), followed by Washington, California, and Idaho. The county-level map reveals clustering around major federal facilities and high-resource renewable areas (desert Southwest for solar, nuclear facilities, and national labs). There does not seem to be a clear finding for the distribution of the NEPA review process by type.
The final deliverable examines geographic location of projects. Table 3 reports project counts by NEPA process type, Figure 7 visualizes that with a state map, and Figure 8 does so by county. Click here for a complete table of project count by county, which is prohibitively large.
State-Level Distribution
| State | Categorical Exclusion | Environmental Impact Statement | Environmental Assessment | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| South Carolina | 3,932 | 47 | 23 | 4,002 |
| Washington | 2,051 | 95 | 62 | 2,208 |
| California | 1,545 | 185 | 92 | 1,822 |
| Idaho | 1,529 | 91 | 56 | 1,676 |
| Oregon | 1,225 | 68 | 31 | 1,324 |
| Colorado | 1,222 | 44 | 45 | 1,311 |
| Nevada | 848 | 111 | 27 | 986 |
| Arizona | 804 | 69 | 89 | 962 |
| Texas | 664 | 26 | 22 | 712 |
| Wyoming | 654 | 47 | 11 | 712 |
| New Mexico | 582 | 59 | 39 | 680 |
| New York | 583 | 26 | 12 | 621 |
| Illinois | 533 | 9 | 20 | 562 |
| Utah | 504 | 46 | 9 | 559 |
| Pennsylvania | 518 | 10 | 6 | 534 |
| Tennessee | 312 | 44 | 24 | 380 |
| Note: Each project may be in multiple states, meaning totals may sum to greater than project total of 25,000. |
South Carolina clearly sticks out with the number of projects in the state. Click here to explore a more detailed table of projects there.
County-Level Distribution
At the county level, Aiken, South Carolina, has a number of projects that are largely driven by nuclear projects at the Savannah River Site. Boundary, Idaho also has a high count of projects, likely driven by the national labs there.
**Note that county data is only available for about 46% of projects, with about 13,392 projects missing county-level project identifiers. This is largely because many CE projects do have have county identifiers.
Process Type by Location
Report generated 2026-01-21 | NEPA Clean Energy Analysis